Use paranoia_destroyed? instead of deleted? #472
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hi @jhawthorn. Since you released the last 2.4.2 version, I'm asking you (didn't find any instructions for contact in CONTRIBUTING.md or elsewhere). I would like to know if you think this PR needs any explanation or additional work? |
|
Closing my own stale PR. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
2b0db84 introduced
record.paranoia_destroyed?#390 introduced usage of
record.deleted?torecord.paranoia_destroyA project I work on has a database column named
deleted. The usage of thedeleted?method byparanoia_destroyclashes with that column, preventing us to update to a newer version of this gem.Using
paranoia_destroyed?avoids that clash.Since
deleted?is literally an alias ofparanoia_destroyed?, I cannot imagine there being downsides to this change.